/  '  *  **•? 


7 


THE 


CONSERVATIVE  REVIEW 


MAY,  1899. 


No.  2. 


VOL.  I, 


A  QUESTION  OF  NATIONAL  HONOR. 

By  Hon.  Williafm  Henry  Fleming. 

EVERY  American  citizen  who  values  the  honor  of  his 
country  ought  to  acquaint  himself  with  the  facts  re- 
garding our  war  with  the  Spaniards,  recently  ended,  and  our 
war  with  the  Filipinos  that  is  still  in  progress.  We  need  not 
concern  ourselves  with  all  the  details.  A  few  salient  points 
will  serve  to  guide  us,  if  we  really  wish  to  find  the  truth  and 
are  willing  to  face  it  when  we  find  it. 

Strictly  speaking,  there  was  but  one  declaration  of  war 
by  Congress,  and  yet,  for  all  practical  purposes,  we  have 
had  two  wars.  The  Spanish-American  war,  which  began 
April  21,  1898,  practically  closed  with  the  signing  of  the 
peace  protocol,  August  12,  1898.  The  American-Filipino 
war  began  on  February  4,  1899,  two  days  before  the  peace 
treaty  of  Paris  was  to  come  up  for  amendment  and  ratifica- 
tion in  the  United  States  Senate — for  there  was  never  any 
intention  to  reject  the  treaty  as  a  whole.  The  only  amend- 
ment desired  was  one  disclaiming  permanent  sovereignty 
by  us  over  the  Philippine  Islands  and  promising  ultimate 
independence  to  their  inhabitants. 

In  entering  upon  the  war  with  Spain  our  country  rose  to 
a  height  of  moral  grandeur  not  surpassed  in  all  history.  The 
tender  pain  of  sympathy  for  Cuba,  joined  to  our  righteous 
indignation  at  the  murder  of  our  sailors  aboard  the  Maine, 
begat  in  the  American  heart  a  stern  determination  to  break 
once  and  forever  the  chains  of  Spanish  oppression  in  the 
2 


200  A  Question  of  National  Honor. 

Western  Hemisphere.  How  swiftly  and  nobly  this  purpose 
was  executed  the  whole  world  knows.  The  magnanimity  of 
our  people,  the  bravery  of  our  sailors  and  soldiers,  the  splen- 
did victory  of  Dewey,  the  supreme  self-sacrifice  of  Hobson, 
furnished  fit  material  for  an  epic  poem,  heroic  in  every  part. 
Under  the  ennobling  influence  of  such  achievements  we  had 
a  right  to  expect  that  our  Administration,  in  dealing  with 
the  Filipinos,  would  guard  carefully  the  national  good  name 
and  still  further  establish  our  moral  leadership  of  the  world. 
But  therein  we  have  been  sorely  disappointed.  Whether 
we  have  gained  in  physical  power  may  be  open  to  difference 
of  opinion,  but  that  we  have  lost  in  moral  prestige  scarcely 
admits  of  a  doubt.  It  is  hard  for  us  to  repress  a  blush  of 
shame  when  we  look  at  the  simple  record  of  facts. 

The  Filipinos  had  long  been  oppressed  like  the  Cubans, 
and  like  the  Cubans  had  rebelled.  The  destruction  of  Mon- 
ti jo's  fleet  gave  us  the  mastery  over  Spain  in  eastern  waters, 
but  a  Spanish  army  prevented  us  from  capturing  and  hold- 
ing Manila.  Dewey  was  a  straightforward,  honest-minded 
man  who  believed  that  the  Administration  at  Washington 
would  remain  true  to  the  plain  declaration  of  Congress  in 
beginning  the  war  that  we  did  not  aim  at  the  acquisition  of 
territory  by  conquest.  He  therefore  saw  no  impropriety  in 
his  making  use  of  Aguinaldo  and  his  followers  to  help  con- 
quer Spain.  In  the  consequent  prospect  of  Filipino  inde- 
pendence Dewey,  as  a  liberty-loving  American,  found  noth- 
ing to  deter  him  from  such  purpose,  but  much  to  urge  him 
on.  Indeed,  the  first  thought  of  this  consummate  tactician, 
thousands  of  miles  away  from  American  reinforcements, 
was  no  doubt  to  make  prompt  use  of  every  available  local 
means  to  strengthen  his  own  position  and  weaken  that  of 
the  enemy.  Our  consular  officers,  Pratt,  Wildman  and  Wil- 
liams, agreed  with  him  on  that  point,  and  so  it  was  ar- 
ranged among  them  that  Aguinaldo  and  seventeen  other 
revolutionary  chiefs,  all  of  whom  were  then  in  Hong  Kong, 
should  return  to  the  Philippines  and  put  new  life  into  the 
rebellion  against  Spain.  Guns  and  ammunition  were  sup- 
plied by  us,  and  Aguinaldo  raised  a  large  army  and  besieged 
Manila  from  the  land  side,  and  was  largely  instrumental  in 
bringing  about  the  conditions  that  forced  the  surrender  of 
that  city  on  August  14,  1898,  after  American  reinforcements 
had  reached  Dewey,  and  two  days  after  the  signing  of  the 
peace  protocol  with  Spain,  but  before  the  news  of  such  sign- 
ing had  reached  Manila.  Had  the  surrender  of  Manila  been 
delayed  until  official  information  of  the  peace  protocol  had 


A  Question  of  National  Honor.  201 

been  communicated  to  Dewey  he  could  not  have  attacked 
Manila,  and  thus  our  whole  attitude  toward  Spanish  pos- 
sessions in  the  East  would  have  been  far  less  advantageous 
than  the  one  we  were  really  enabled  to  assume  in  negotiat- 
ing the  treaty  of  Paris.  No  one  at  all  acquainted  with  the 
facts  will  deny  that  but  for  Aguinaldo's  assistance  to  Dewey 
Manila  could  have  held  out  long  beyond  the  date  of  its  sur- 
render on  August  14,  1898. 

Nor  did  Aguinaldo  confine  himself  to  land  operations.  He 
secured  ships  which  Admiral  Dewey  allowed  "to  pass  in 
and  out  of  Manila  Bay  in  their  expeditions  against  other 
provinces,"  according  to  the  testimony  of  Major-General  F. 
V.  Greene,  U.  S.  V. 

Thus  Admiral  Dewey  and  our  consular  representatives 
sanctioned  the  rebellion  of  the  Filipinos  against  Spanish 
authority,  and  accepted  and  used  them  as  our  allies,  and  we 
profited  by  their  services,  our  Government  knowing  all  the 
time  they  were  fighting  for  their  independence  with  much 
the  same  hopefs  and  aspirations  that  animated  our  revolu- 
tionary soldiers  in  1776. 

Newspapers  of  late  have  contained  some  thinly  veiled 
complaints  against  Dewey  for  having  "blundered"  in  hold- 
ing the  relations  that  he  did  with  Aguinaldo.  But  not  so. 
He  deserves  no  such  criticisms.  He  knew  nothing  of  the 
sinister  purpose  that  was  forming  in  the  mind  of  our  Ad- 
ministration to  seize  the  Philippine  Islands  by  conquest  of 
arms  in  violation  of  the  purpose  declared  by  Congress  at 
the  beginning  of  the  war.  No  doubt  he  found  it  difficult  to 
understand  exactly  what  was  expected  of  him,  for  in  one  of 
his  dispatches  he  insisted  that  our  Government  should  "de- 
clare its  policy." 

After  the  surrender  of  Manila  on  August  14,  1898,  we 
had  no  further  fighting  with  Spain.  But  the  Filipinos  kept 
up  their  aggressive  warfare  on  Spanish  troops  in  order  to 
establish  the  independence  for  which  they  had  from  the  first 
been  contending.  They  captured  arms  and  munitions  and 
prisoners,  and  drove  the  Spanish  soldiers  from  nearly  every 
part  of  Philippine  soil,  except  at  Manila  and  Iloilo.  The 
revolutionary  government,  under  which  they  had  accom- 
plished so  much,  was  succeeded  later  on  by  a  government 
more  republican  in  form,  modeled  after  our  own  as  far  as 
conditions  would  admit. 

With  the  fall  of  Manila  the  independence  of  the  Filipinos 
aa  against  Spain  was  practically  assured,  and  with  grateful 
hearts  they  were  ready  to  hail  us  as  their  heroic  deliverers, 


202  A  Question  of  National  Honor. 

and,  no  doubt,  to  reward  us  with  any  military  or  commer- 
cial advantages  we  could  rightfully  ask.  They  knew  our 
Congress  in  going  to  war  had  declared  against  the  acquisi- 
tion of  territory  by  conquest.  They  knew  our  past  history 
was  one  glorious  struggle  for  liberty  and  the  equality  of 
man  before  the  law.  They  knew  our  Republic  rested  on  the 
broad  principle  that  all  governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.  They  knew  we 
had  promised  independence  to  Cuba,  thousands  of  miles 
nearer  to  our  shores.  They  knew  that  their  own  arms  had 
helped  us  to  conquer  Spain.  As  showing  their  expectations 
and  their  confidence  in  us,  note  the  following  extract  from 
Aguinaldo's  proclamation  of  May  28,  1898: 

"The  great  nation,  North  America,  cradle  of  true  liberty 
and  friendly  on  that  account  to  the  liberty  of  our  people, 
oppressed  and  subjugated  by  the  tyranny  and  despotism  of 
those  who  have  governed  us,  has  come  to  manifest  even  here 
a  protection  which  is  decisive  as  well  as  disinterested 
toward  us,  considering  us  endowed  with  sufficient  civiliza- 
tion to  govern  by  ourselves  this  unhappy  island." 

What  a  disillusioning  revelation  it  must  have  been  to 
these  patriots  when  they  found  out  that  our  great  liberty- 
loving  republic  was  rushing  troops  half-way  around  the 
world  to  crush  out  of  existence  their  young  republic  whick 
had  sprung  into  being  as  an  inspiration  from  our  own  high 
ideals.  The  case  stated  to  a  point  is  simply  this :  The  Fili- 
pinos asked  us  for  our  consent  to  their  independence.  We 
refused.  Hence  the  American-Filipino  war.  That  is  the 
"nub"  of  the  whole  business. 

Readers  (if  there  be  any)  of  the  debates  appearing  in  the 
Congressional  Record  toward  the  close  of  the  last  session, 
will  be  put  to  their  wits'  end  to  harmonize  the  seemingly 
contradictory  statements  contained  in  many  of  the  speeches 
pro  and  con  on  the  subject  of  our  relations  to  Aguinaldo  and 
his  followers.  Opponents  of  the  Administration's  policy 
quote  freely  from  the  letters  of  our  consuls  showing  the 
agreements  made  and  partly  acted  out  with  Aguinaldo.  Sup- 
porters of  that  policy  cite  the  dispatches  from  our  State  De- 
partment refusing  to  make  any  promises,  etc.  The  apparent 
contradiction  is  easily  explained.  It  is  only  a  matter  of 
fixing  the  dates  of  the  several  transactions.  In  the  early 
stages  of  the  war  with  Spain  our  Consuls  and  Dewey  freely 
accepted  the  services  of  the  Filipinos  as  our  allies,  knowing 
they  were  fighting  for  independence,  of  which  our  State 
Department  was  fully  cognizant,  and  this  course  of  dealing 


A  Question  of  National  Honor.  203 

continued  until  reinforcements  reached  Dewey  and  our  Ad- 
ministration conceived  and  began  to  put  into  gradual  exe- 
cution the  purpose  of  grabbing  the  Philippine  Islands  as  a 
prize  of  war.  After  that  time  our  State  Department  began 
to  "disapprove"  and  hold  aloof.  It  was  then  and  thus  that 
Filipinos  were  transformed  from  friends  into  enemies  and 
from  patriots  into  rebels. 

One  of  the  earliest  of  these  cautionary  dispatches  was 
sent  to  Consul  General  Pratt  on  June  16,  1898,  as  follows: 
"Avoid  unauthorized  negotiations  with  Philippine  insur- 
gents." 

Another  was  sent  to  Consul  Wildman  on  August  6,  1898: 
"If  you  wrote  Aguinaldo  as  reported  by  Hong  Kong  corre- 
spondent Daily  Mail,  your  action  is  disapproved  and  you 
are  forbidden  to  make  pledges  or  discuss  policies." 

Again,  on  August  15,  1898:  "Take  no  action  respecting 
Aguinaldo  without  specific  directions  from  this  depart- 
ment." 

But  this  change  of  policy  came  too  late.  While  no  one 
claims  that  we  had  made  any  precise  or  technical  agreement 
with  the  Filipinos,  yet  all  must  admit  that  our  general  rela- 
tions to  them  had  already  become  fixed  by  our  own  conduct, 
and  no  word  of  future  caution  to  our  Consuls  could  absolve 
us  from  obligations  previously  assumed  toward  the  Fili- 
pinos. There  is  abundance  of  proof  to  sustain  this  state- 
ment. Note,  for  instance,  the  following  extract  from  a  pub- 
lic speech  by  our  Consul  General  Pratt  at  Singapore,  June 
8,  1898,  in  response  to  a  complimentary  address  from  the 
Filipino  colony  at  that  place. 

"I  am  thankful  to  have  been  the  means,  though  merely 
the  accidental  means,  of  bringing  about  the  arrangement 
between  General  Aguinaldo  and  Admiral  Dewey  which  has 
resulted  so  happily." 

In  a  communication  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated 
June  27, 1898,  Dewey  speaks  for  himself  as  follows : 

"At  the  same  time  I  have  given  him  [Aguinaldo]  to  under- 
stand that  I  consider  insurgents  as  friends,  being  opposed  to 
a  common  enemy.  He  has  gone  to  attend  a  meeting  of  in- 
surgent leaders  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  civil  govern- 
ment. Aguinaldo  has  acted  independently  of  the  squadron, 
but  has  kept  me  advised  of  his  progress,  which  has  been 
wonderful.  I  have  allowed  to  pass  by  water  recruits,  arms 
and  ammunition,  and  to  take  such  Spanish  arms  and  ammu- 
nition from  the  arsenal  as  he  needed.  Have  advised  fre- 


204  A  Question  of  National  Honor. 

quently  to  conduct  the  war  humanely,  which  he  has  done 
invariably." 

From  another  high  authority,  speaking  from  personal  ob- 
servation, we  learn  that  for  four  months  prior  to  October, 
1898,  "in  and  out  of  the  harbor  of  Manila  vessels  passed 
floating  the  flag  of  the  Philippine  Republic  saluting  and 
being  saluted  by  American  men-of-war." 

And  Major  General  F.  V.  Greene,  in  his  testimony  before 
the  United  States  Commissioners  at  Paris,  said,  referring 
to  Aguinaldo  and  his  troops: 

"The  United  States  Government  has  to  some  extent  made 
use  of  them  for  a  distinct  military  purpose,  viz:  to  harrasa 
and  annoy  the  Spanish  troops,  to  wear  them  out  in  the 
trenches,  to  blockade  Manila  on  the  land  side,  and  to  do  as 
much  damage  as  possible  to  the  Spanish  government  prior 
to  the  arrival  of  our  troops." 

On  July  4, 1898,  just  four  days  after  the  arrival  of  the  first 
detachment  of  American  troops  in  the  Philippines,  General 
Anderson,  who  was  in  command,  addressed  a  letter  to  Agui- 
naldo as  "Commanding  the  Philippine  Forces,"  and  after 
assuring  him  that  the  United  States  "has  entire  sympathy 
and  most  friendly  sentiments  for  the  native  people  of  the 
Philippine  Islands,"  said: 

"For  these  reasons  I  desire  to  have  the  most  amicable  re- 
lations with  you,  and  to  have  you  and  your  people  co-operate 
with  us  in  military  operations  against  the  Spanish  forces." 

From  August  14,  1898,  when  the  Spanish  forces  at  Manila 
Burrendered,  to  February  4, 1899,  when  the  actual  hostilities 
of  the  American-Filipino  war  began,  the  two  armies  re- 
mained side  by  side,  or  more  accurately,  perhaps,  face  to 
face.  The  important  question  to  answer  is,  why  did  these 
armies  come  into  conflict?  Why  should  these  recent  allies 
in  arms  against  a  defeated  foe  turn  their  guns  upon  each 
other? 

Were  the  Filipinos  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States? 
No.  Aguinaldo  had  taken  no  oath  of  allegiance  to  ws,  a* 
Washington  had  taken  to  England,  and  until  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treaty  of  peace  we  had  no  proprietary  rights  at 
all  in  their  islands,  except  in  the  limited  territory  we  occu- 
pied with  our  troops,  and  even  that  they  helped  us  to  win* 
Did  we  condemn  their  rebellion  against  Spain?  By  no 
means.  We  approved  and  aided  it.  Were  they  attempting 
to  drive  our  troops  from  off  the  strip  of  land  occupied  by 
them,  or  were  they  committing  outrages  within  their  own 


A  Question  of  National  Honor.  205 

lines  that  demanded  redress  at  our  hands?  Certainly  not. 
What  then  did  the  Filipinos  demand?  Simply  that  we 
should  consent  to  their  independence.  That  was  the  head 
and  front  of  their  offending. 

They  would  have  gladly  accepted  our  friendly  assistance 
in  preserving  order  and  establishing  a  stable  government, 
and  would  have  welcomed  an  American  protectorate  with 
whatever  concessions  it  implied.  As  early  as  April  30, 1898, 
Consul  General  Pratt  wrote  our  State  Department  as  fol- 
lows: 

"The  General  (Aguinaldo)  further  stated  that  he  hoped 
the  United  States  would  assume  protection  of  the  Philip- 
pines for  at  least  long  enough  to  allow  the  inhabitants  to 
establish  a  government  of  their  own,  in  the  organization  of 
which  he  would  desire  American  advice  and  assistance." 

In  the  proclamation  of  June  23,  1898,  establishing  the 
Revolutionary  Government,  it  was  distinctly  announced  that 
its  "object  is  to  struggle  for  the  independence  of  the  Philip- 
pines until  all  nations,  including  the  Spanish,  shall  ex- 
pressly recognize  it,  and  to  prepare  the  country  so  that  a 
true  republic  may  be  established." 

There  was  never  a  day  when  all  danger  of  a  clash  be- 
tween the  American  and  the  Filipino  armies  could  not  have 
been  averted  by  a  simple  statement  from  our  Administration 
that  we  did  not  intend  to  subjugate  them,  but  to  aid  them  to 
independence.  Astute  diplomats  may  seek  to  cover  it  up; 
shrewd  politicians  may  try  to  turn  public  attention  away 
from  it,  but  the  plain  truth  remains  that  it  was  our  refusal 
to  consent  to  the  ultimate  independence  of  the  Filipinos 
that  was  the  cause  of  the  conflict  of  arms  that  began  at 
Manila  on  February  4,  1899.  It  is  equally  true  that  the  re- 
sponsibility for  the  bloodshed  that  followed  must  rest  on 
our  Administration  unless  it  can  justify  that  refusal.  Agui- 
naldo's  object  was  independence.  McKinley's  purpose  was 
subjugation.  Which  was  right?  That  is  the  question  to 
be  answered  before  the  bar  of  public  opinion  now  and  here- 
after. 

As  to  who  were  the  immediate  aggressors  in  beginning 
the  firing  on  the  night  of  February  4,  there  seems  to  be 
some  dispute.  Our  dispatches  naturally  tended  to  put  the 
blame  on  the  Filipinos,  but  the  wires  were  under  our  censor- 
ship. When  our  soldiers  return  home  and  are  mustered  out 
and  feel  free  to  talk  we  will  doubtless  get  much  more  light 
on  that  subject.  The  writer  has  seen  a  letter  from  an  Amer- 
ican officer  engaged  in  the  first  fighting  between  Manila 


206  A  Question  of  National  Honor. 

and  Caloocan,  in  which  he  said:  "The  worst  of  it  is,  the 
fighting  began  from  our  ranks." 

By  what  standard  of  morality  will  our  imperialists  seek 
to  justify  our  conduct  toward  the  Filipinos?  Certainly  not 
by  that  highest  of  all  codes  of  ethics  which  the  Great 
Teacher  enjoined  upon  his  followers  when  he  went  up  into 
the  Mount  and  spake  as  man  never  yet  spake.  If  the  stand- 
ard enjoined  by  divine  revelation  be  too  high  for  human 
virtue,  will  they  appeal  to  our  own  political  sermon  on  the 
Mount,  the  Declaration  of  Independence?  We  hear  them 
every  day,  in  their  hopeless  extremity,  repudiating  the  long 
accepted  truths  of  that  immortal  document.  Can  they  find 
excuse  in  the  truths  of  science  as  discovered  by  human  rea- 
son? Some  of  the  master  minds  in  that  realm  have  demon- 
strated that  the  highest  civilization  will  some  day  be 
reached  through  natural  evolution  of  the  golden  rule,  when 
egoism  will  flower  out  into  altruism.  One  of  the  latest  gen- 
eralizations of  science  finds  expression  in  these  pregnant 
words:  "That  the  moral  law  is  the  unchanging  law  of 
progress  in  human  society  is  the  lesson  which  appears  to  be 
written  over  all  things."  So  that,  whether  we  follow  the 
light  of  reason  or  the  light  of  revelation,  we  arrive  at  the 
same  conclusion  as  to  the  wisdom  of  moral  conduct.  The 
true  measure  of  a  people's  civilization  is  found  in  their  re- 
gard for  the  rights  of  others. 

Loyalty  to  country  is  noble,  but  loyalty  to  country  and  to 
truth  is  nobler  still.  Commodore  Decatur,  at  a  banquet  at 
Norfolk  in  1816,  gave  his  famous  toast:  "Our  country!  In 
her  intercourse  with  foreign  nations  may  she  always  be  in 
the  right;  but  our  country,  right  or  wrong."  Then  the  sol- 
dier spoke.  Hon.  Carl  Schurz,  in  the  United  States  Senate 
in  1872  said:  "Our  country  right  or  wrong!  When  right,  to 
be  kept  right!  When  wrong,  to  be  put  right!"  Then  the 
statesman  spoke. 

Some  men  never  see  the  truth  in  this  higher  form.  Their 
miscalled  practical  wisdom  is  too  shortsighted  to  discover 
it.  It  lies  just  beyond  the  contracted  circle  of  their  vision. 

Judging  from  articles,  editorial  and  otherwise,  in  the  daily 
press,  one  would  infer  that  there  are  many  people  in  the 
United  States  who  view  the  acquisition  of  the  Philippines  as 
parallel  in  political  significance  to  the  acquisition  of  Louisi- 
ana. No  half  truth  could  be  farther  from  the  whole  truth. 
The  taking  of  that  vacant  domain  in  the  temperate  zone  rep- 
resented genuine  American  expansion,  because  American 
citizens  could  make  homes  there,  rear  families,  and  develop 


A  Question  of  National  Honor.  207 

the  same  sturdy  civilization,  based  on  equality  of  rights, 
that  existed  in  the  older  States.  But  our  American  citizens 
— our  white  race — cannot  make  permanent  homes  as  far 
down  in  the  tropics  as  the  Philippine  Islands,  already  thickly 
populated  with  an  acclimated  race,  nor  have  our  imperial- 
istic politicians  any  intention  of  giving  the  Filipinos  the 
full  and  equal  rights  of  other  American  citizens.  A  promi- 
nent physician,  now  residing  in  California,  who  graduated 
eight  years  ago  from  the  University  of  Leiden,  in  his  native 
country  of  Holland,  and  who  is  familiar  with  Dutch  Colonial 
affairs,  writes  in  a  recent  letter:  "In  the  Dutch  East  Indies 
Europeans  only  survive  to  the  second  generation.  A  third 
generation  is  unknown."  That  the  imperialists  have  no  in- 
tention of  benevolently  expanding  American  equality  of 
citizenship  so  as  to  embrace  the  Filipinos,  nor  of  making  the 
Philippine  Islands  a  co-equal  part  of  our  country,  is  mani- 
fest from  the  following  extract,  taken  from  the  McEnery 
resolution,  that  passed  the  Senate  on  February  14,  1899,  by 
the  vote  of  the  Administration  party: 

Resolved,  etc.,  "That  by  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  with  Spain,  it  is  not  intended  to  incorporate  the  in- 
habitants of  the  Philippine  Islands  into  citizenship  of  the 
United  States,  nor  is  it  intended  to  permanently  annex 
said  islands  as  an  integral  part  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States,"  thus  attempting  to  reverse  the  legal  and 
constitutional  results  of  what  they  had  done  in  ratifying  the 
treaty  without  amendment. 

In  other  words,  we  Americans  will  not  concede  to  the 
Filipinos  the  rights  that  pertain  to  American  independence, 
nor  will  we  permit  them  to  have  their  own  independence; 
which,  being  further  translated  into  plain  words,  means,  the 
Philippine  Islands  are  to  be  neither  States  nor  territories, 
but  colonial  dependencies,  governed,  in  defiance  of  our  own 
Constitution,  by  a  military  satrap  at  the  will  of  an  alien 
power.  Evidently  this  is  not  the  extension  of  American- 
ism, but  the  adoption  of  a  new  policy  foreign  to  every  prin- 
ciple of  Americanism.  Expansion  means  the  enlarging  of 
the  same  thing,  not  the  taking  on  of  a  different  thing.  No 
one  but  a  blind  man  ought  to  have  any  difficulty  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  expansion  of  Jefferson  and  the 
imperialism  of  McKinley.  One  was  the  natural  evolution- 
ary growing  of  the  Republic.  The  other  is  a  foreign  fungus 
that,  if  not  removed,  will  sap  the  life  of  the  Republic. 

Our  diplomatic  difficulties  in  connection  with  the  Philip- 
pines were  largely  of  our  own  creation.  Had  our  Adininis- 


208  A  Question  of  National  Honor. 

tration  not  yielded  to  the  greed  of  conquest,  had  it  only 
acknowledged  the  right  of  the  Filipinos  to  ultimate  inde- 
pendence, the  complexity  of  the  situation  would  have  re- 
solved itself  into  comparative  simplicity.  The  course  of 
wisdom  was  to  be  found  in  the  course  of  simple  honesty,  and 
that  was  the  independence  of  the  Filipino  Republic  under 
friendly  American  protection.  Their  government,  already 
in  existence,  could  soon  have  been  made,  with  our  assistance, 
stable  and  effective.  Indeed,  considering  the  environments, 
the  islands  were  singularly  free  from  disorder,  and  Agui- 
naldo  was  hailed  as  a  popular  hero — save  by  Spanish  and 
American  sympathizers — and  would,  no  doubt,  have  fur- 
nished in  his  own  person  that  individual  pre-eminence  of 
some  one  man  that  seems  so  necessary  in  every  movement 
to  build  up  a  popular  government  on  the  ruins  of  a  des- 
potism. A  free  government  evolved  by  the  intelligent  na- 
tive classes  out  of  local  conditions  and  suited  to  local  needs, 
would  ensure  more  of  life  and  vigor  to  the  native  races  (if 
that  be  our  pious  object)  than  any  domination  we  can  im- 
pose on  them.  There  is  deep  wisdom  in  the  statement  of 
Macintosh  that,  "Governments  are  not  made;  they  grow." 
From  that  truth  springs  the  whole  philosophy  of  local  self- 
government. 

Our  imperialistic  apologists  must  seek  some  justification 
before  the  bar  of  public  opinion — they  still  feel  the  necessity 
of  paying  that  homage  to  virtue — and  hence  they  tell  us 
that  this  weak  republic  in  the  East  would  be  a  prey  to 
European  rapacity.  This  tender  solicitude  is  in  strange 
contrast  to  the  assault  we  ourselves  have  made  upon  the 
flag  of  that  republic,  and  the  wretched  slaughterings  that 
have  been  committed  there.  If  a  European  power  should 
attempt  to  seize  the  Philippines  now,  we  would  have  to  fight 
that  power  and  the  Filipinos.  Whereas,  had  we  consented 
to  their  independence  our  joint  forces  could  have  met  the  at- 
tack. If  we  convert  ten  million  friends  into  ten  million 
enemies,  our  position  is  weakened  by  twenty  millions.  It 
is  just  as  hard  to  see  any  military  advantage  that  we  have 
gained  by  our  breach  of  faith  with  these  people  as  it  is  to 
see  the  commercial  advantages  we  are  to  reap  from  that 
"open  door"  trade  arrangement,  by  which  competitors  nearer 
the  field,  with  lower  freight  charges,  can  undersell  us,  and 
by  which  we  are  to  give  the  Eastern  world  an  instructive 
object-lesson  against  our  high  protective  tariff  policy,  to 
the  infinite  delight  of  our  English  cousins,  and  to  the  utter 
disgust  of  our  home  consumers,  when  the  market-price  of 


A  Question  of  National  Honor.  209 

competitive  articles  at  New  York  shall  be  higher  than  at 
Manila. 

The  attitude  of  our  imperialistic  preachers  and  newspa- 
pers is  one  of  the  most  surprising  phenomena  of  the  war. 
Some  of  these  representatives  of  the  lowly  Nazarene  evince 
a  boastful  spirit  of  world-grasping  political  ambition,  and 
a  callous  indifference  to  the  blood-letting  going  on  in  the 
Philippines  that  would  better  typify  Pagan  Eome  than 
Christian  America.  These  good  men,  no  doubt,  have  per- 
suaded themselves  gradually  into  the  belief  that  they  are 
affected  only  by  a  sincere  desire  to  promote  the  mission-work 
of  the  Gospel.  But  in  diagnosing  their  cases,  one  can 
scarcely  fail  to  discover,  as  a  subtle  irritant  to  their  mis- 
taken fervor,  a  latent  desire,  (of  which  they  are,  of  course, 
unconscious),  to  strike  a  blow  at  another  church  which  at 
least  acknowledges  the  same  Grod  and  the  same  Saviour. 
Nothing  can  beget  a  higher  elevation  of  soul  than  a  broad 
and  charitable  acceptance  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  But 
nothing  is  more  destructive  to  wise  political  action  than 
religious  fanaticism  and  sectarian  contention. 

Religious  freedom  in  the  Philippines  was  an  assured  thing 
when  Spain's  power  was  broken,  and  the  denial  of  inde- 
pendence to  the  Filipino  Republic,  with  the  consequent 
•laughter  of  Filipino  patriots  by  American  soldiers,  must 
surely  retard  the  efforts  of  our  Protestant  missionaries  to 
gain  a  favorable  hearing  for  a  new  religion  or  a  new  church 
against  the  old.  From  what  text  in  the  Bible  could  one 
of  our  missionaries  now  preach  a  sermon  to  the  Filipinos, 
without  either  condemning  the  conduct  of  his  own  countrj 
or  provoking  a  smile  of  derision  from  his  hearers?  He 
might  enthuse  over  the  exalted  precepts  of  Christianity, 
but  he  would  not  dare  to  try  to  enforce  them  by  citing  our 
example  as  a  Christian  nation. 

If  the  rewards  and  punishments  of  moral  laws  attach  to- 
nations  as  to  individuals,  we  will  have  to  pay  a  penalty  for 
our  conduct  toward  the  Filipinos.  That  penalty  will  come 
not  only  in  lives  and  treasure,  but  in  the  blunting  of  our 
national  conscience  and  in  the  lowering  of  our  political 
ideals,  which  always  help  to  lift  a  people  out  of  the  mud, 
even  though  they  may  not  raise  a  people  to  the  stars. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  that  while  our  sol- 
diers, ever  obedient  to  orders,  and  bravel  in  the  face  of 
perils,  are  winning  the  plaudits  which  the  world  always 
gives  to  heroism,  our  Administration  is  writing  one  of  the 


210 


A  Question  of  National  Honor. 


most  shameful  chapters  in  the  whole  history  of  American 
statesmanship. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  still  have  it  in  their  power 
to  regain  much  that  has  been  lost.  Let  them  stop  this  un- 
righteous war  and  recognize  the  independence  of  the  Fili- 
pino Kepublic.  Such  an  act  would  not  be  evidence  of  cow- 
ardice, but  proof  of  a  love  of  justice.  Our  Administration 
needs  less  party  pride,  more  genuine  patriotism,  and  a  higher 
type  of  moral  courage — the  courage  to  do  right. 


THE  BROWNING  LETTERS. 

By  Georgina  G.  Buckler. 

1.  The  Letters  of  Robert  Browning  and  Elizabeth  Barrett, 
1845-1846,  with  Portraits  and  Fac-similes.  In  two  volumes. 
Harper  &  Brothers,  New  York:  1899. 

<*  A  MAN'S  foes  shall  be  they  of  his  own  household."  This 
jLJL  is  one's  first  reflection  upon  the  extraordinary  un- 
veiling which  Mr.  Robert  Barrett  Browning  has  made  to  us 
of  the  inner  life  of  his  father  and  mother.  We  ask  ourselves 
how  the  son  of  the  man  who  wrote  "House,"  of  the  man 
whose  proud  boast  it  was  to  have  a  "soulside"  shown  only 
to  the  woman  whom  he  loved,  could  bring  himself  to  expose 
that  soulside  to  the  public  view;  or  how  the  son  of  a  woman 
who  refused  a  dedication  from  her  husband  because  she 
could  not  bear  to  have  words  from  him  "which  the  world 
might  listen  to"  could  let  that  same  world  read  the  words 
which  of  all  others  she  held  most  sacred.  The  unveiling  is 
astounding,  take  it  as  we  may.  Whether  or  no  we  regard 
the  end  as  having  justified  the  means  is  another  question, 
and  will  be  answered  by  each  reader  according  to  his  tem- 
perament. Yet  a  further  point  may  be  raised  in  the  inquiry, 
whether  even  if  justifiable  this  publication  was  or  was  not 
expedient,  that  is  to  say,  whether  it  heightens  or  diminishes 
our  respect  for  the  poet-lovers.  Does  the  code  of  literary 
honor  suffer?  And  if  so,  does  the  cause  of  literature  gain? 
It  will  be  easier  to  answer  these  two  inquiries  after  a  brief 
statement  of  what  the  letters  really  are. 

In  two  thick  volumes  Mr.  Robert  Barrett  Browning  has 
given  us  286  love  letters  written  by  his  father,  all,  in  fact, 
except  one  which  was  restored  to  and  burnt  by  him,  and  the 
complete  296  from  his  mother.  They  range  over  a  period 
of  twenty  months,  from  January  10,  1845,  to  September  19, 
1846.  Those  of  the  first  four  months  mark  an  earnest  at- 
tempt, on  her  side  at  least,  after  a  Platonic  friendship. 
Browning,  then  a  man  of  over  thirty,  and  by  his  own  show- 
ing anxious  to  retain  his  bachelor  freedom,  opened  the  corre- 
spondence by  writing  to  praise  her  verses,  but  in  a  few  days 


212  The  Browning  Letters. 

he  was  relying  on  her  letters  as  his  greatest  help  to  work. 
She,  though  "rejoicing"  in  being  "articled"  as  his  "corre- 
spondent," after  three  weeks'  acquaintance  by  letter,  and 
owning  to  "great  sympathies  in  common,"  yet  had  for  her 
ambition,  as  she  tells  him  on  February  24,  1846,  that  he 
should  forget  she  was  a  woman  and  let  them  "be  friends." 
Her  delicate  health,  coupled  with  her  fame  as  a  poet,  served 
for  many  weeks  to  blind  her  to  the  most  obvious  of  all  possi- 
bilities. When  it  became  a  fact,  and  when  Browning  after 
many  entreaties  obtained  an  interview  with  her  on  May  20, 
1845,  and  on  the  strength  of  this  one  conversation  wrote 
asking  her  to  marry  him,  she  appears  to  have  been  genuinely 
distressed.  The  offending  document  was  returned,  and  for 
some  months  the  letters  and  interviews  proceed  on  a  less 
emotional  basis.  But  before  the  close  of  1845  marriage  is 
spoken  of  by  both  of  them  as  a  definite  arrangement,  of 
which  only  the  date  depended  on  her  health.  From  this 
time  onward  we  have  love  letters  pure  and  simple,  showing 
a  steady  crescendo  of  devotion  on  both  sides.  The  last 
eighteen  were  written  by  the  pair  in  the  week  between  their 
secret  marriage,  noted  down  by  Browning  as  their  ninety- 
first  time  of  meeting,  and  their  flight  from  London.  After 
September  19,  1846,  they  were  never  separated,  and  the  let- 
ters accordingly  cease.  As  we  put  down  this  bulky  corre- 
spondence, it  is  amusing  to  remember  Browning's  words  in 
his  second  letter,  January  13,  1844:  "See  how  I  go  on  and 
on  to  you,  I  who,  whenever  now  and  then  pulled,  by  the  head 
and  hair,  into  letter-writing,  get  sorrowfully  on  for  a  line 
or  two,  as  the  cognate  creature  urged  on  by  stick  and  string, 
and  then  come  down  'flop'  upon  the  sweet  haven  of  page  one, 
line  last,  as  serene  as  the  sleep  of  the  virtuous!"  To  her 
letter- writing  was  always  a  pleasure,  though,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  her  energies  forsook  former  channels  when  this  new 
one  was  once  established  and  old  correspondents  became  a 
burden. 

Now,  whatever  else  may  be  claimed  for  this  publication, 
it  is  certainly  unique.  Among  the  married  couples  who 
have  kept  all  each  other's  love  letters,  there  has  hitherto 
never  been  found  one  either  with  letters  of  sufficient  exter- 
nal interest  to  justify  publication,  or  with  a  son  inclined  to 
publish  them.  Here  for  the  first  time  in  all  experience  we 
have  the  opportunity  of  tracing  the  entire  course  of  a  love 
affair  other  than  our  own.  "Love  as  she  is  wrote"  has  come 
before  the  eyes  of  most  of  us,  but  never  from  the  pens  of  two 
total  strangers.  That  they  are  dead  does  not  free  us  from 


The  Browning  Letters.  213 

the  sense  of  shame-faced  amazement  with  which  we  listen 
to  their  love-making  and  read  the  deepest  secrets  of  their 
hearts. 

Amazement  is,  however,  not  altogether  an  unpleasant 
sensation,  and  even  shame  may  have  its  compensations.  It 
is  here  that  individual  differences  of  temperament  come  in. 
To  some  the  feeling  of  having  profaned  the  Mysteries  will 
be  swallowed  up  in  truly  sympathetic  interest.  To  others 
the  sense  of  treading  on  forbidden  ground  makes  even  inter- 
est seem  an  outrage.  Of  course,  many  of  these  letters  might 
have  been  published  without  exciting  any  such  comment. 
By  a  judicious  selection  the  reader's  interest  might  have 
been  equally  roused,  and  his  self-reproach  as  an  eavesdrop- 
per avoided.  Any  autobiography  of  nearly  1,200  pages  is 
likely  to  contain  much  that  would  be  better  omitted,  and  in 
this  instance,  before  the  end  of  the  two  volumes,  the  reader's 
sense  of  intrusiveness  is  heightened  by  weariness  and  sur- 
feit. The  conjugation  of  the  verb  "to  love"  has  been  much 
the  same  since  the  world  began,  and  not  even  a  poet  and  a 
poetess  can  rob  it  of  its  monotony.  It  is  true  that  this  con- 
stitutes half  the  book  and  more.  But  if  all  the  love-making 
were  omitted  and  such  parts  only  preserved  as  the  writers 
would  themselves  have  consented  to  see  published,  we 
should  have  a  small  volume  full  of  true  literary  and  not 
morbid  interest.  Mrs.  Browning  herself,  though  valuing 
letters  "as  the  most  vital  part  of  biography,"  qualified  this 
statement  by  saying,  "not  that  I  would  not  myself  destroy 
papers  of  mine  which  were  sacred  to  me  for  personal  rea- 
sons." Browning  goes  further,  and  cries  out  against  pos- 
thumous revelations  which  lay  bare  "these  passions  of  the 
now  passionless,  errors  of  the  at  length  better  instructed," 
and  even  more  tersely  and  decisively  he  says:  "Burn  any- 
body's real  letters."  In  ignoring  these  clear  wishes  of  his 
parents,  Mr.  Robert  Barrett  Browning  shows  his  preference 
for  the  Fifth  Commandment  as  stated  in  dough's  "Latest 
Decalogue,"  and  his  hope  for  "advancement"  in  some  shape 
from  an  inquisitive  and  unsensitive  public.  He  will  prob- 
ably get  it. 

So  far  the  question  has  merely  been,  what  moral  right  a 
man  has  to  publish  the  secrets  of  the  dead.  If  this  right  is 
denied  at  the  outset,  our  obvious  duty  is  to  leave  the  book 
unread,  so  as  not  to  profit  by  the  crime.  If,  however,  we 
admit  the  privilege  of  the  literary  executor  to  use  his  own 
discretion,  our  criticism  becomes  one  rather  of  differing  taste 
than  of  Wholesale  censure.  The  book  leaves  on  us  a  pleas- 


214 


The  Browning  Letters. 


ant  or  unpleasant  sensation,  according  as  curiosity  or  deli- 
cacy prevail.  But  beyond  the  question  of  taste  we  saw  also 
the  question  of  expediency.  What  are  likely  to  be  the  feel- 
ings of  the  reader  as  he  lays  down  the  book?  Will  he  ad- 
mire the  styles,  thoughts  and  characters  of  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Browning  more  or  less  than  he  did  before? 

In  the  first  place,  no  one  could  fail  to  take  a  quickened 
interest  in  the  life  and  circumstances  of  the  two  lovers. 
Most  people  know  from  the  biographies  that  Elizabeth  Bar- 
rett, in  consequence  of  an  accident  at  the  age  of  fourteen, 
was  leading  a  dreary  invalid's  life  within  closed  doors,  when 
Kobert  Browning's  strong  devotion  that  would  take  no 
denial  roused  her  almost  against  her  will  into  a  second  birth 
of  life  and  love.  Never  were  there  two  gems  of  more  differ- 
ent quality,  or  shown  in  more  different  settings.  Browning 
stands  before  us  first  and  last  as  the  ideal  Prince  Charm- 
ing— strong  in  health,  except  for  the  headaches  which  give 
Miss  Barrett  so  much  cause  for  delightful  anxiety — endowed 
with  "serene  spiritual  eyes"  and  other  personal  attractions; 
the  polished  and  versatile  favorite  of  society,  though  caring 
little  for  it;  the  idol  of  an  excellent  father,  mother  and  sis- 
ter, who  ask  no  inconvenient  questions  and  are  never 
jealous;  the  author  of  poems  increasingly  appreciated  and 
increasingly  remunerative;  in  short,  a  man  so  highly  blest 
by  nature  and  the  world  that  it  only  needed  the  supreme 
blessing  of  a  worthy  and  requited  love  to  complete  the 
whole.  This  he  was  destined  to  find  in  Elizabeth  Barrett, 
the  very  complement  to  all  his  characteristics. 

Miss  Barrett  seems  to  have  been,  until  she  came  under  his 
influence,  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  happiness.  She  say& 
herself,  in  March,  1845:  "I  have  lived  only  inwardly,  or 
with  sorrow  for  a  strong  emotion."  Even  the  external  cir- 
cumstances of  her  life  were  depressing.  Her  mother  had 
been  long  dead.  Her  father,  who  might  well  stand  for  a 
Brutus  or  a  traditional  English  parental  tyrant,  only  ap- 
pears in  her  life  as  a  monster  of  severity  and  selfishness. 
He  excites  at  best  a  sort  of  shuddering  affection,  and  his 
rare  caresses  are  irksome  because  his  harshness  drives  all 
his  children  into  deceiving  him.  He  was  insanely  opposed 
to  his  daughters'  marrying,  and  the  very  idea  of  openly 
thwarting  him  terrified  Elizabeth,  than  whom  no  one  could 
have  been  more  sensitive  about  outside  opinions,  into  a  se- 
cret engagement  and  an  elopement.  The  reader  is  left  won- 
dering whether  the  sister  Henrietta,  who  afterwards 
achieved  matrimony  herself,  cut  her  Gordian  knot  as 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 
Syracuse,  N.  Y 

PAT.  JAN.  21,1908 


